coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Ms Tatiana Panov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  Since the 1980s the applicant rented an apartment owned by the Municipality.
7.  In 1989 the building in which the apartment was situated was damaged with the result that it was formally declared to be no longer fit for habitation. The Municipality therefore decided to provide all the inhabitants with other accommodation.
8.  Between 1990 and 2000 the applicant requested the Municipality on numerous occasions to provide her with other accommodation, but to no avail.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Municipality. On 19 February 2001 the Centru District Court granted the application and ordered that the applicant be provided with alternative accommodation. On 27 November 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court and the judgment became final.
10.  Since the final judgment was not complied with by the Municipality, the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner in which the enforcement of the judgment was to be carried out. In particular, she claimed money from the Municipality in lieu of alternative accommodation.
11.  On 22 July 2003 the Centru District Court upheld the applicant's action and ordered the Municipality to pay her the price of the apartment in the amount of 11,000 United States Dollars (USD). However, that decision was also not enforced. On 18 August 2004 the applicant lodged her application with the Court, complaining of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 July 2003. On 14 September 2004, the Centru District Court quashed the judgment of 22 July 2003 following a revision request lodged by the Municipality and reinstated the judgment of 19 February 2001.
12.  The judgment of 27 November 2001 has not been enforced to date and the applicant continues to live in her old apartment.
13.  According to the Government an apartment building in which the applicant's apartment will be located is currently under construction by the Chişinău Municipality.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kovarditsy, the Vladimir Region.
5.  In 1998 the applicant's father died in a fire. The applicant alleged that the death had been caused by the firemen's manifest failure to comply with the fire-fighting instructions. In 2001 K., an investigator of the Murom Division of the State Fire Department, reported to a local prosecutor about the incident. In his official explanatory note issued in reply to the prosecutor's inquiry K. stated that the applicant's repeated unfounded complaints demonstrated that she must have been suffering from some mental disorder and that he strongly recommended subjecting her to a psychiatric examination.
6.  The applicant sued K. and the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region for defamation.
7.  On 22 July 2004 the Murom Town Court found in the applicant's favour. The court held, in particular, that K. had acted in his official capacity of an investigator when making the defamatory statements about the applicant. The court awarded her 3,030 Russian roubles (RUB) in non‑pecuniary damages against the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region and ordered K. to retract the false information about the applicant. On 21 September 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the judgment in substance, and it entered into force. The judgment has not been executed to date.
8.  On 1 April 2005 pursuant to order no. 487 of 26 October 2004 issued by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia, the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region was liquidated by way of removal from the State tax register. The functions of the State Fire Department have since been executed by the previously existing Vladimir Region Office of the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia.
9.  On 27 March 2006 two writs of execution issued by the Murom Town Court on 22 July 2004 were received by the bailiff service of the Vladimir Region, which initiated the enforcement proceedings on the same day. In the course of the proceedings the bailiff service established that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtor's liquidation. On 21 June 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir terminated the enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 29 December 2006 the Murom Town Court refused to replace the respondent authority by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia on the ground that the latter was not a legal successor to the defunct State Fire Department. The judgment was upheld by the Vladimir Regional Court on 19 April 2007.
11.  The applicant further sued the Ministry of Finance for damages resulting from the firemen's negligence. On 17 April 2007 the Vladimir Regional Court in the final instance rejected her complaints as unfounded.
5.  The applicants were born in 1998 and 2002 respectively and live in Linz.
6.  The applicants have a maintenance claim against their father Mr W (“the debtor”). Apparently the debtor fell into arrears with maintenance payments (Unterhaltsrückstand) amounting to the sum of EUR 3,006. The applicants applied for enforcement of their payment orders to the competent District Court (Bezirksgericht) in Enns. The enforcement order (Exekutionsbewilligung) provided for the sale of the debtor's movable property (Fahrnisexekution) and granted the applicants a lien on outstanding claims which the debtor held against his own debtors (Forderungsexekution).
7.  On 21 July 2006 the debtor lodged an action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act (Oppositionsklage) to have the claim underlying the enforcement order dismissed and also applied to postpone enforcement (Aufschiebung der Exekution) until a decision on his action had been reached. In support of his case to have the enforcement order set aside, the debtor stated that during the period of time in which he had not made maintenance payments, the applicants had been living with him and he had paid all their living expenses.
8.  In support of his application to postpone enforcement regarding the sale of movable property, the debtor claimed he would risk losing his property rights over the objects seized for enforcement. He also argued that if a lien against outstanding claims from his own debtors was enforced, the recovery of the money from the applicants, who did not have any funds, would be nearly impossible if the enforcement order was, in fact, set aside.
9.  On 27 July 2006 the District Court, without hearing the applicants, allowed the postponement of enforcement by granting the applicants a lien on outstanding claims if a deposit of EUR 3,500 was lodged with the court but the postponement of the sale of the debtor's movable property was not granted. On 2 August 2006 the debtor appealed, claiming that the deposit was too high. The applicants were not notified of the appeal.
10.  The Steyr Regional Court (Landesgericht) quashed the decision, ordering both kinds of enforcement to be postponed until the decision on the action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act was rendered and re-setting the deposit at EUR 1,000. The applicants were not heard in the proceedings. It held that an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court was not admissible. The applicants, having lost the case on postponement of the enforcement, were obliged to reimburse legal costs amounting to EUR 305.40 to the debtor.
4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1938, 1952, 1948 and 1945 respectively, and live in Balıkesir and Istanbul.
5.  On 8 December 1972 the applicants' mother lodged a case with the Gönen Civil Court against the Treasury and the Office of the Headman of the Paşaçiftlik village (muhtarlık), requesting that plots of land nos. 117, 130, 135, 168, 274, 438, 494, 497 and 578 be registered in her name. Six other persons intervened in the case, laying claim to the same plots.
6.  On 28 March 1977 the Gönen Civil Court delivered a decision of non‑jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Gönen Cadastre Court.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicants' mother died. On 24 October 1984 the applicants informed the first-instance court that they wished to become parties to the proceedings, as heirs.
8.  On 18 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicants' case and held that the land should have been registered in the name of the interveners' heirs.
9.  On 22 June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
10.  On 4 March 2007 the first-instance court resumed the examination of the case following its remittal by the Court of Cassation.
11.  On 28 January 2009 the last hearing was held.
12.  According to the information submitted to the case file in June 2009, the proceedings are currently pending before the Gönen Cadastre Court.
7.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1933, 1928, 1925, 1957 and 1959 respectively and live in Albania and Austria.
8.  On 22 June 1994 the Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave - “the Commission”) recognised the applicants' property title over a plot of land and a building on the land. As reconstruction works which had started on an unspecified date before 1990 had not been completed, the building had become uninhabitable. For that reason, the Commission also awarded damages to the applicants in the amount of 997,230 Albanian leks (“ALL”).
9.  The applicants contested the amount of damages awarded by the Commission. On 14 March 1995 the Saranda District Court, relying on an expert report, awarded the applicants damages in the amount of ALL 4,600,000, approximately 33,065 euros (“EUR”). That judgment became final on 14 April 1995.
10.  In a letter dated 11 November 1998, the Ministry of Finance informed the applicants that joint guidelines had to be issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice concerning the enforcement of judicial decisions that had an impact on the State budget.
11.  On 25 May 2000 the Saranda District Court issued an execution writ in respect of its 1995 judgment.
12.  In a letter of 5 July 2000 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicants that they were to be compensated by means of State bonds.
13.  In a letter of 7 November 2002 Mr Refat Puto requested the Saranda Bailiff's Office to execute the District Court's judgment.
14.  In response to the applicants' letter, the Ministry of Justice's General Director for the Bailiff's Office requested the Saranda Bailiff's Office on 16 February 2002 to enforce the District Court's judgment. A similar letter was sent by the General Directorate of the Bailiff's Office to the Saranda's Bailiff's Office on 7 April 2004.
15.  On 22 October 2005 and 3 March 2006 the applicants sent two letters to the Ministry of Justice. No response had been received by the date on which the application was introduced with this Court.
16.  In their comments to the applicants' claims for just satisfaction, the Government submitted that on 25 April 2002 the applicants had sold the plot of land and the building thereon to third parties. The sale contract, concluded by a notary deed, was submitted in support.
17.  By a letter of 4 July 2008 the Saranda Office for the Registration of Immovable Property (Zyra Vendore e Regjistrimit te Pasurive te Paluajtshme Sarande) certified that the applicants' property had been transferred to third parties by virtue of the sale contract of 25 April 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 4 September 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board for compensation for the damage suffered due to a flood.
6.  On 12 February 1998 the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction.
7.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the National Water Board for compensation.
8.  On 12 May 2000 that court dismissed the case.
9.  On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2000.
10.  On 14 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1975, 1971, 2001, 2004, 1994, 1999 and 1978 respectively and live in Yerevan.
5.  According to the applicants, they enjoyed a right of use of accommodation in respect of a house which measured 60.2 sq. m and was situated at 15 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The house was owned by their family member, A.Y. The Government contested this allegation and claimed that only the applicants Vahan Yeranosyan, Vardan Yeranosyan, Ruzanna Yeranosyan and Siranush Khachatryan enjoyed such a right, while the remaining applicants, who were minors, were only entitled to live in the house in question.
6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.
7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government decided to contract out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed Main Avenue – to a private company, Vizkon Ltd.
8.  On 1 October 2004 Vizkon Ltd and the Yerevan Mayor's Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.
9.  It appears that by a letter of 8 June 2005 Vizkon Ltd informed the applicants that the house in question was situated within the expropriation zone of the Main Avenue area and was to be taken for State needs. It further appears that each applicant was offered USD 2,000 as compensation.
10.  It appears that the applicants did not accept this offer.
11.  On an unspecified date Vizkon Ltd instituted proceedings against the applicants on behalf of the State, seeking to terminate their right of use of accommodation and to have them evicted.
12.  On 30 June 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների աոաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted the claim of Vizkon Ltd, terminating the applicants' right of use and awarding each of them the Armenian dram equivalent of USD 2,000 in compensation. In doing so, the court referred to Article 218 § 1 of the Civil Code.
13.  On 15 July 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.
14.  On 8 August 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) granted the claim of Vizkon Ltd on the same grounds as the District Court.
15.  On 22 August 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law which they supplemented on 19 September 2005.
16.  On 23 September 2005 the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան) dismissed the applicants' appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 6 March 1995 the applicant and another plaintiff brought an action before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the invalidation of a contract.
6.  On 7 May 1996 the court held a hearing and, on 21 June 1996, appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 24 June 1998.
7.  On 20 October 1998, 12 January, 9 March, 11 May and 22 June 1999 hearings were held. Subsequently the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of the applicant's co-plaintiff. On 28 January 2000 a successor joined the proceedings.
8.  On 10 March 2000 the case was suspended pending the termination of criminal proceedings against the respondents which the court considered a preliminary question. This prosecution, conducted on charges of financial fraud, originated in 1997. On 13 May 2005 the plaintiffs informed the court of the termination of the criminal case by the appellate criminal court and requested the continuation of the civil proceedings.
9.  On 30 August, 5 and 8 November 2005 the court held hearings. On 15 November 2005 it gave judgment, finding for the plaintiffs. On 29 November 2005 the respondents appealed.
10.  On 5 October 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by judgment of 15 February 2007, upheld the first-instance decision.
11.  On 11 May 2007 the respondents filed a petition for review. By its review judgment of 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the final judgment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Gdynia.
6.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant was charged with having committed various offences, inter alia robberies, and was detained on remand. Subsequently criminal proceedings were instituted against him before the Gdańsk Regional Court.
7.  On 15 May 2001 the bill of indictment comprising initial charges brought against the applicant was filed with the Gdańsk Regional Court.
8.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was released from detention by the decision of the Gdańsk Regional Court.
9.  On 11 July 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided that it was not competent to examine the case and ordered that it be transferred to the Brodnica District Court. On 9 August 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
10.  On 20 September 2007 the Brodnica District Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Toruń Regional Court finding the latter court competent to examine the case having regard to the recent amendments in the applicable law.
11.  On 14 November 2007 the Brodnica District Court quashed its previous decision concerning the question of competence.
12.  It appears that the proceedings are currently still pending before the Brodnica District Court acting as a court of first-instance and no hearing has yet been held in the case.
13.  On 5 October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) on formal grounds.
14.  On 25 March 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s second complaint under the 2004 Act and dismissed it as ill‑founded. The court established that the bill of indictment had been lodged as early as 15 May 2001; however, the case had been very complex, which justified the overall length of the proceedings.
15.  The applicant’s subsequent complaints under the 2004 Act were rejected on 15 November 2005 and 27 April 2006 for various procedural reasons.
4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1942 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  In a real estate dispute, on 11 October 1995 the applicants brought an action against the Budapest Administrative Office. The Pest Central District Court dismissed their action on 6 May 1997. On 26 February 1998 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
6.  In the context of the above dispute, on 14 May 1996 and 4 July 1997, respectively, the applicants filed criminal reports against various individuals on charges of fraud and other offences. Their complaints against the non-pursuit of these proceedings were finally dismissed on 31 March 1999.
7.  On 26 May 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Buda Central District Court for judicial constitution of a contract of sale of a property. On 16 December 1997 they requested the suspension of the proceedings pending another action of theirs, introduced on 3 October 1997, in which they sought deletion of a related land register entry. On 6 January 1998 the District Court decided to suspend the proceedings since the issues to be determined in the other case were found to be preliminary ones.
8.  In the case concerning the land register entry, on 7 April 1998 the applicants modified their action; therefore, the action had to be extended to include further respondents. However, the applicants did so only on 21 April 1999. After several hearings, the proceedings had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000 and 19 April 2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent. On 21 March 2002 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held several hearings and on 15 January 2004 upheld the first-instance decision in a final judgment. The applicants filed a petition for review. On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to deal with the merits of the petition holding that the conditions thereof were not met. A further so-called appeal, not recognised under the law, was dismissed on 1 March 2006.
9.  Subsequently the applicants notified the District Court of the termination of the case concerning the land register issue, and the one concerning the constitution of a contract was resumed. Several hearings took place between 10 January 2007 and 18 April 2008. On 28 August 2008 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 28 May and 24 September 2009 and delivered a judgment on 1 October 2009, overruling the first-instance judgment in favour of the applicants and constituting the contract as requested. On 27 November 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court.
3.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara.
4.  The applicant was dismissed from his job at military facilities following disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Supreme Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of Defence against him for misconduct in office. He subsequently lodged an application with the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of his dismissal.
5.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court regarding the applicant's dismissal, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
6.  On 1 July 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it rejected the applicant's request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.
7.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and live in Érd.
5.  On 6 January 1991 the applicants and others brought an action before the Buda Surroundings District Court for ascertainment and designation of the boundary of a real property. On 7 November and 11 December 1991 hearings were held.
6.  On 15 September 1994 and 7 July 1995 further hearings took place and, on 12 July 1994, an expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 22 August 1995.
7.  On 27 March 1996 the applicants instituted land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.
8.  On 20 March 1996 a hearing was held. On 2 April 1996 the court gave judgment.
9.  On appeal, on 5 June 1997 the Pest County Regional Court held a hearing and suspended the case pending the land registry proceedings.
10.  Subsequently, on 6 April 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing and again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings which had been reopened in the meantime.
11.  On 7 February 2006 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings yet another time, pending an action concerning the rectification of the title plan, still in progress before the Budaörs District Court.
12.  The case is pending before the Regional Court.